Transforming technology frameworks for the planet | IGF 2023

Online Moderator

The summaries present an engaging inquiry into the practices of large technology corporations, often referred to as big tech, particularly in the realm of digital transformation. The central argument revolves around big tech’s extractivist approach, extending beyond data to include water and natural resources. This is seen as significantly contributing to the ongoing climate and ecological crises. The conversation points out that the ‘green’ solutions proposed by these companies have been problematic due to their inherent extractive nature. This substantiates the negative sentiment woven throughout the discussion.

Another focus topic in the discussion is electronic waste, also termed as e-waste. This is increasingly produced as a byproduct of significant digital transformation and infrastructure expansions. The problem of responsibility for e-waste is underlined, highlighting the associated Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to responsible consumption and sustainable urban environments. The Nodotao project in Argentina, which addresses e-waste, is cited as a supporting evidence. However, the query regarding who should be accountable for managing this still lingers.

Furthermore, the role of governments in instigating this situation is sternly questioned. They are criticised for funding traditional big tech models, thus displaying a lack of support for alternative technological business models. This criticism is particularly directed at local governments in Latin America, implying an inequality in resources distribution and hindrance of innovative potential in these regions.

In addition to the central debates, the summary also shines a light on the underpinning themes linked with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These include SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities; SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities; SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production; SDG 13: Climate Action; and SDG 15: Life on Land.

On the whole, the discourse emphasises the urgency for responsible, sustainable practices in digital transformation, challenges the extractivist model of big tech, calls for governmental reinforcements for alternative business strategies, and advocates for accountability in e-waste management.

Becky Kazansky

The analysis spans a wide range of themes intersecting technology, sustainable production, and climate action. A dominant sentiment of concern emerges regarding the environmental impact of emerging technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI). Evidence suggests that every five enquiries made to AI chatbots result in half a litre of water being used, raising questions about resource consumption. Significant criticism is further directed towards carbon offsets, primarily due to evidence that over 90% of validated and standard-conforming offsets are ineffective and do not operate as anticipated.

Against this backdrop, the EU Green Claims Directive emerges as a positive development. This innovative policy aims to enhance transparency in sustainability claims, empowering consumers to discern the true environmental impact of products. This directive also dispels the notion that companies can achieve climate neutrality or sustainability through carbon offsets alone.

Further scrutiny in the realm of carbon markets and offset mechanisms is encouraged. The analysis suggests that even well-intended strategies may be inadequate, with bona fide carbon offsets often failing to function ecologically as initially planned. Civil society is urged to pursue a more comprehensive and fundamental critique of carbon offsets, highlighting the need for decisive climate action strategies.

Solar geoengineering, a speculative technology, warrants examination due to its potential to exacerbate rather than mitigate climate change. This technology, which necessitates broad-scale coordination, has solicited scepticism from scientists worldwide. Over 400 scientists question the practicality of governing such an expansive, potentially hazardous technology, advocating instead for a precautionary approach.

The analysis also voices strong support for just transitions – socio-economic and environmental strategies seeking equitable outcomes for society at large. A call for action is made to challenge potentially misleading climate solutions, a contentious issue the climate justice movement has been fervently addressing for decades.

The need for robust regulation of speculative, potentially harmful climate technologies is emphasised, amidst concerns over excessive investment by tech giants. The need for greater engagement and open dialogue surrounding these controversial climate technologies is also underscored, considering the propensity of large tech corporations to invest heavily in such technologies as part of their ongoing profit models.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the profound links between climate action, sustainable production and innovative technology. It brings to light pressing issues over resource management and the veracity of ‘green’ strategies, underscores both regulatory and consumer measures to scrutinise and verify sustainability claims, and stresses the need for thorough critique, regulation and discussion around speculative technological responses to climate change.

Onsite Moderator

In her reflections, Kemly Camacho affirmed the paramount importance of incorporating human-scaled values, such as solidarity, friendship, happiness, and passion, into the spheres of globalisation and digitalisation. She emphasises the integration of these values into business models, accounting, project management, and team collectives as promising pathways to effectively tackle significant socio-economic and cultural matters. She also heralded non-profit business models as viable, sustainable solutions capable of addressing these challenges. The sentiment expressed towards this approach is categorically positive.

Further, Camacho ardently advocated for the formation of alternative business models as a potent solution to the ongoing climate crisis and the worsening contributions of the digital economy. She underscored the unsustainability of current models due to their heavy reliance on extractivism. Pointing to organic agriculture and social economy, she proposed these as positive examples of alternative models that prioritise sustainable business practices.

The Onsite Moderator voiced the belief that it is possible to foster a digital economy that respects and upholds planetary justice, environmental justice, care, and solidarity. Such principles are recognised as integral to realising SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). Moreover, the intersectionality of environmental sustainability and the exercise of digital rights, both online and offline, was highlighted.

The pivotal role of governments as allies and champions of environmental justice was acknowledged. The Moderator posits that cooperation, standardisation, global norms, and internet governance in the digital realm can offer significant support to these governmental initiatives and facilitate a fair and just transition.

There was an emphatic call for governments to take bold steps in supporting alternative business models, particularly in light of the climate and ecological crisis. It was argued that governments should not only tackle the sustainability challenges associated with Big Tech’s business models but should also allocate funds to promote alternative business models. The limiting and problematic elements of Big Tech’s model, particularly its generation of e-waste and overdependence on data extractivism, were spotlighted as areas requiring significant overhaul and improvement.

Camacho stressed the need to pivot from digital transformation to digital appropriation. Traditional models, including start-ups, unicorns, and big techs, were identified as requiring a reevaluation as they priortise value addition and accumulation over redistribution and solidarity. She championed digital appropriation as a means to curtail consumption and develop essential digital tools.

Finally, the importance of considering different contextual factors in AI usage and data collection was underlined. Solutions need to be customised and tailored to respective communities, with the global community ensuring that those impacted are meaningfully included in discussions. The role of local communities was emphasised, and the voices of those affected were recognised as essential to the decision-making process.

In summary, the predominant sentiment advocates for a paradigm shift in business practices towards more sustainable, inclusive, and just models. This shift is expected to support several UN Sustainable Development Goals and pave the way for a sustainable digital economy and responsible AI usage.

Jaime Villareal

The May 1st Movement Technology Cooperative promotes social and environmental justice by providing an autonomous communications infrastructure. This infrastructure, which is collectively owned and democratically governed by the cooperative’s members, supports communication services, such as email, web hosting, and file sharing. This cooperative model promotes democratic leadership and communal ownership, contributing significantly to societal growth and development.

Contrasting with data-centric corporate internet services, the cooperative’s primary focus is not on data collection or data mining. Members consistently vote to maintain the infrastructure free from surveillance or exploitation, emphasising transparency and respect for privacy.

However, the cooperative faces challenges due to resource scarcity, limited capital, and lack of suitably-located server facilities. Constraints include insufficient funds for building personal data centres or gaining direct access to renewable energy resources, and finding cost-effective solutions for managing electronic waste is a challenge.

Despite these hurdles, the cooperative strives to increase environmental sustainability and reduce their carbon footprint. The cooperative’s operations are less environmentally damaging than corporate internet services owing to their avoidance of an extractive business model.

The cooperative strongly opposes corporate internet services’ surveillance and data collection practices, viewing them as coercive and exploitative. They critically analyse the capitalist narrative that advocates for high-yield businesses as the sole solution to climate change. They argue that the implementation of policies such as artificial intelligence (AI) — fuelled by data extraction and knowledge accumulation — have significant environmental and societal impacts.

Favouring collaborative working, the cooperative advocates for community or cooperative-based models for climate control and societal issues. They emphasise on fostering long-term sustainable development through engagement, communication, and cooperation, rather than domination and extraction.

The cooperative is critical of businesses that participate in ‘greenwashing’, making false claims of environmentally-friendly practices, while operating with extractive business models. Additionally, they reject the proposal of paying fines or taxes as atonement for corporate misconduct, comparing it to the flawed carbon credit system.

They express concern over large companies’ unauthorised use of user data for AI model training, deeming it exploitative. There’s also worry over users being unknowingly coerced into participating in AI training.

The cooperative opposes universal solutions for preserving local languages and indigenous cultures, insisting that proper consultation with local communities is vital. They stress the importance of recognising each community’s unique needs and interests. Overall, the cooperative is firmly dedicated to privacy, community engagement, and environmental sustainability, continuing to navigate through their challenges and make strides towards achieving their goals.

Florencia Roveri

Florencia Roveri champions the concept of a digital economy that incorporates elements of environmental justice, sustainability, e-waste management, and digital inclusion. This is exemplified by their organisation’s establishment in 1995 by a team of engineers, educators and social activists. The main motivation for their initiative was the growing need for effective and sustainable management of the increasing volumes of e-waste sourced from companies.

Their innovative and proactive step in transforming their e-waste management facility into a cooperative, initiated by seven founding members, was geared towards handling complex responsibilities such as production, commercialisation, and habilitation. This action demonstrated an awareness of the multifaceted challenges presented by e-waste and aimed at promoting social inclusion by incorporating more young individuals into the workforce. This aligns with the aims of SDG 8: ‘Decent Work and Economic Growth’.

Roveri emphasises the necessity for comprehensive e-waste management plans where responsibilities are shared amongst numerous actors. This includes government bodies playing a role in facilitating the disposal process, and companies generating e-waste ensuring its appropriate management. This reflects the importance of a united effort in achieving environmental sustainability, aligning with SDG 12 and 17—’Responsible Consumption and Production’ and ‘Partnerships for the Goals’, respectively.

Roveri also tackles a significant misconception about e-waste, underscoring it’s often misperceived as a ‘donation’ when, in reality, it’s a significant issue. They highlight the costs and risks associated with processing e-waste, demonstrating that it simply transfers the problem to other actors.

Moreover, Roveri proposes the idea of e-waste management being recognised as a public service due to its global impact and pervasive implications. They acknowledge the challenges in managing e-waste given its complex nature and the involvement of various stakeholders but also recognise the potential profits diligent e-waste management could yield.

Lastly, Roveri advocates for viewing e-waste management not solely as an environmental imperative but also as a potential source of job creation. They suggest it could serve as a solution to the ‘digital divide’, emphasising its societal and economic significance.

In conclusion, Roveri offers a comprehensive perspective that integrates the roles of diverse stakeholders to tackle the challenge of e-waste management effectively. This collective approach utilises e-waste management as a tool for job creation and a bridge to span the digital divide.

Kemly Camacho

Kemly has highlighted the urgent necessity to explore alternative business models, emphasising the gravity induced by societal factors as well as environmental crises. These new models are specifically designed to break socio-economic impasses and champion feminist entrepreneurship alongside businesses that regard care and solidarity as central principles. These values-driven business approaches have been identified as critical in addressing a complex interrelation of social, cultural, and economic issues.

A thorough critique of traditional models within the digital economy reveals their shortcomings in supporting entrepreneurs grappling with socio-economic problems. Notably, entrepreneurs frequently encountered obstacles in securing essential finance and technical support. This examination has been increased noting that business plans centred on fostering social and cultural awareness are rarely seen as viable under existing digital economy frameworks.

Kemly has further marked the current global environmental crisis as a patent symbol of urgency, necessitating a comprehensive reform of established business models. Predominant models, underpinned by extractivism, are now perceived as unsustainable, urgently demanding innovation.

Urgent changes in prevailing digital transformation narratives among governments, academia, and start-up ecosystems in Latin America were proposed. Currently, the dominating ideologies incline strongly towards consumption-based models. The recommendation for academia, incubators, and governments is a drastic revision of business methods and an uptake of digital appropriation models, which significantly contrast the current focus on consumption in digital transformation initiatives.

The dominant models within the digital economy and traditional business, owing to their extractive tendencies, have been subjected to rigorous critique, especially given the emergence of new values such as solidarity and care. This critique strongly advocates that platform companies should pivot their business models from value extraction and instead, concentrate on fostering and accelerating solidarity and care.

The digital appropriation strategy could present a valuable remedy, especially pertinent in the post-pandemic era. It accentuates the need to identify useful digital tools, aiming to reduce wasteful resource use. Furthermore, technology frameworks should echo this sentiment, focusing on solving tangible, real-life problems faced by women, including childcare and community care.

The concept of fair employment is emphasised as central to business models like cooperatives, and its vital contribution to the survival of humanity is unequivocally stated. Nonetheless, concerns have been raised about the growing acceptance of precarious work and the practice of charging for machine-learning training. These are seen as threats to the principles of human survival and equitable access to digital resources, respectively, thus underlining the necessity to integrate socio-economic and environmental sustainability and care-oriented values within current business models.

Audience

The comprehensive discourse highlights the divisive perceptions concerning the current practices of AI companies, particularly regarding their data usage and training techniques. Notably, there is a prevailing negative sentiment surrounding AI companies exploiting data without providing compensation or respecting copyright laws, a standpoint seen as discourteous, prompting suggestions to revisit these practices and potentially, levy relevant taxation. This concept is based on the understanding that the sophistication of AI relies heavily on the consumption of substantial data volumes, however, in the existing scenario, there is no remuneration structure for the people who generate or own the data.

On a positive note, there is substantial advocacy for delving into the economics of artificially intelligent platforms, reflecting the sentiment that there is a necessity to make AI smarter. Although this argument does not deliver direct supporting facts, it implies an expectation for a more robust and intelligently engineered AI system that is propelled by an integrated understanding of economics and data science.

Further positivity emanates from the discussion on innovation, particularly with the focus on alternative technology frameworks. Dialogues on this topic have spotlighted cooperative models as potential solutions. This argument suggests that the evolution of technology frameworks, specifically those with elements of social, ecological, and feminist policies, could be the key to surmounting prevailing challenges.

Simultaneously, the impact of AI on the industry landscape of Japan is notably significant. The transformative change ascribed to AI is predicted to disrupt the existing ‘pyramid’ structure prevalent in the industry. Insights indicate that the smaller ‘worker’ roles, traditionally executed by humans, are being replaced by AI, signalling a shift in the dynamics of the digital industry.

Indeed, this transition also emphasises new opportunities for work styles and business models. Within this ever-changing landscape, it’s suggested that AI training could emerge as a novel style of work, particularly for those proficient in Japanese, pointing to an evolving job market.

Conclusively, the analysis identifies a distinct disparity between current and AI-introduced business models. It suggests a shift in the layered fabric of the Japanese industry, indicating a dichotomy between a rich industrial history and the transformation instigated by AI-driven models.

Overall, the analysis presents a holistic image of the ongoing structural, operational, and ethical debates surrounding artificial intelligence. The future path seems to advocate diversity, questioning antiquated practises, and forging ahead with more cooperative, equitable, and mutually beneficial approaches for humans and AI.

Yilmaz Akkoyun

The BMZ, Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, is actively striving to enhance societal, political, and economic participation among individuals in its partner countries. A particular emphasis is placed on the most marginalised sections, demonstrating the ministry’s commitment to establishing a comprehensive, holistic approach to address the root causes of multifaceted issues.

Despite these efforts, a considerable digital divide exists globally. Nearly half of the world’s population lacks internet access, with internet usage dropping to fewer than 40% in partner countries. Worryingly, women and marginalised communities bear the brunt of this divide, highlighting significant and widespread inequality in digitalisation.

To counteract this issue, the BMZ has backed a fair, secure, open, and free internet under the banner of the Global Digital Compact. This step is considered a crucial driver in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Actively engaging in the associated dialogue and processes, the ministry is intent on promoting an inclusive digital transformation that is environmentally friendly, socially conscious, and feminist.

A human-centred perspective is core to digital transformation. Germany, in collaboration with the European Union, is shaping digitalisation to address potential environmental, human rights, and societal risks. The country’s digital policy is underpinned by three core elements: establishing standards and norms, Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and developing digital skills within society and the economy.

Importantly, digitalisation is being employed as a tool to actively combat environmental challenges. Germany partners with countries around the globe to advocate fair regulation of the digital economy. This is exemplified by their collaboration with Smart Africa in developing national Artificial Intelligence strategies focused on environmental challenges.

Education is pivotal for the successful enactment of digital transformation. Germany’s commitment to encouraging digital skills is demonstrated through platforms such as Attingi, which has engaged over 11 million individuals, most notably advancing young women’s comprehension of digitalisation.

Simultaneously, Germany expresses concerns over the misuse of data and the risk of exacerbating social divisions. Therefore, they are committed to ensuring their digital policy promotes a safe, inclusive internet and fair data markets in partner countries to circumvent these issues.

The sustainability of waste donation is questioned, with an expressed need for increased education in waste management. In terms of equity in digital transitions, the BEAMSET digital initiative supports fair digital transitions in partner countries. The initiative Fair Forward contributes to this goal, working to develop open-source AI models to stimulate local innovation.

The importance of economic aspects within these engagements is recognised, yet a global discussion on the topic is deemed necessary. In terms of international partnership, BMZ contributes significantly to global politics, maintaining robust relationships with a broad international network of governments and other stakeholders, especially civil society actors. This underlines the urgency of integrating local and national perspectives from the Global South into the international discourse.

In conclusion, according to the BMZ, global digital cooperation is essential for supporting a holistic approach to digital transformation. The guiding focus is on fostering international partnerships to drive digital transition that is both socially and environmentally sustainable.

Kemly Camacho:
models and feminist economy proposals. Not only for our own business, but also, as I said before, to create incubators for entrepreneurship, especially for women in IT, to develop other kind of business models. We have learned how to integrate solidarity, friendship, happiness, passion in business models. And we have create business models where these words and where these beliefs are part of the business model, part of the accounting, part of the project management, part of the team collective, yes? And we have learned how to develop non-profit business as a strategy to respond to social, economic, and cultural problems. For the social economy model inside the digital economy, the business part is an answer for the social, cultural, and economical needs. It’s not the main issue, the business part, yes? That comes from the social economy perspective, yes? Non-profit business models where the business is the answer to these social problems. Inside the IT society who have a specific problem related with the digital. And we also have learned how to put care in the center of our business model, and that comes from the feminist economy. Care in the center of business models. models, then solidarity in the centre of business model, care in the centre of business model, non-profit models, yes, in the digital, for a digital, non-destructive digital society. There are important challenges. We have launched last year, in alliance with the National Centre for Training in Co-ops and in alliance with the University of Mondragon, and we have incubated, since 10 years already, digital feminist initiatives based in a model that we have created, who began with a feminist hackathon, which is very different than a normal hackathon, yes, it’s a hackathon not for competition, but for sharing, yes, and everything, I cannot go in details, but we have created this incubator of digital feminist initiatives, but of course we confront in our context difficulties in the innovation ecosystem to try to support these initiatives, platform co-ops or feminist entrepreneurship for the IT and for the digital society, because they not fit in what they understand is an innovation, or in what they understand is a business model for the digital economy. Then the access to finance, to support, to technical support, is very hard and difficult. We have to create them ourselves also. Then this is a main challenge. We really believe there is a need to create alternatives and demonstrate there are other ways to develop the digital economy, and we feel it’s urgent. The planet is burning, and the answer is not in the business model that we have created until now. We have to create other business model and demonstrate that it’s possible to develop a digital economy not based in extractivism. There are movements in advance of ourselves where we can look at examples, and always I put the organic agriculture as an example of how we can develop these other models. And also, of course, the social economy. They inspire our experience, and we hope we inspire you to propose alternatives. Thank you.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you so much, Camly, particularly for reminding us that it is possible to have a digital economy that contributes to planetary justice, environmental justice, not dissociated from care and solidarity. So I think that’s very important, and that’s the change of paradigm. So with that, I would like to invite one of our remote speakers, Florencia Roveri from UNODO TAU, who is joining us from Argentina. So, Florencia, can you hear us? Can you confirm if you can hear us? Yes, hello. Good night. We can hear you perfectly, welcome. So nice to see you, Florencia, welcome to the panel. And I would like you to please, Florencia, tell us what motivated UNODO TAU to transform your e-waste management facility into a cooperative, and what has been the impact so far? Also, we are very curious to hear about the obstacles that you have faced in that transitioning process. So you have the floor, and welcome again, Florencia. Thank you, Valeria, and thank you for the invitation to share our experience in this. Can you hear me? Yes, Florencia. We can hear you. Go ahead, please. Okay.

Florencia Roveri:
For sharing our experience in this instance, in this pre-event, it is very valuable for us to participate and add our view. We are a social organization in Argentina, and as Valeria mentioned, we are a social organization that works for the digital inclusion of organizations created by a group of engineers, educators, and social activists. We move from this objective of working for the access to technology to deal with the access of technology. In that sense, we developed a plan for the treatment of e-waste. We began in – sorry, I am going to start again, sorry – that was a social organization created in 1995, and we developed our work in that sense. The plans we create, it has to do with the access of machines we start to receive from companies, machines that we delivered for the organization of a network of telecenters. The plan was created in 2019, and it was in the frame of a local program of work inclusion. And it was formed by six young men and one woman, accompanied by three members of Nodoktau. The plant receives mainly e-waste from companies and public bodies that must, sorry, sorry, sorry, Valeria, I am dealing with my nerves and the distance, I have to reorganize, sorry. It’s okay, it’s okay Florencia, if you prefer we can come back to you in a bit, is that something that you could like us to do, then we can invite him and then we can go back to you? Is it okay? It’s okay, it’s okay. Okay, but if you prefer to continue, if you prefer to continue now, it’s also okay, just let me know what your preference could be. We create the plant, in that frame I was mentioning, and four years after the creation of the plant we start leading with some aspects related to the focus of Nodoktau in the work of digital inclusion but also in the sustainability of the plant. So we need to face that challenge of articulating the dynamic of the organization and of the plant management. Our focus was a more general work and the cooperative was growing and, sorry, go on with Jaime, sorry for that, sorry for that.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you so much, Florencia, for sharing your experience, and then you can add anything when we are in part of the conversation, feel free to jump in and add anything that you might want to share with the audience. Now let’s turn to Mexico and to invite reflections from Jaime Villarreal from the May 1st Movement Technology Cooperative. Jaime, it could be very useful for us to hear your perspective on why it is important for May 1st Movement Technology to be a democratically run, not-for-profit cooperative. Please do share your experience with us. You have the mic.

Jaime Villareal:
Thank you, Valeria. So when May 1st members join our cooperative, they’re choosing to join an organization that supports building movements for social and environmental justice, right? And our specific focus within that is the role of technology in both local and international movement struggles. And so in addition to the movement outreach and engagement that we do, one of May 1st’s central projects is maintaining our own autonomous communications infrastructure. And what that means is we run our own servers, our own internet servers. We provide email, and web hosting, and file sharing, and other communication services like video conferencing for our members. And as part of our cooperative, that means our members of the cooperative collectively own and we democratically govern together this infrastructure. And what that gives our members the power to do is that year after year, they consistently vote to maintain this project, to keep our own infrastructure, and to keep that infrastructure free of any kind of surveillance or exploitation. And this is really, really important. A lot of times people ask us, so are you creating an alternative to the corporate internet services? And, I like to say that, no, we’re not an alternative to Google or to Meta or Amazon or those because we are focusing on the needs of our members. We are providing the tools that facilitate communication, that allow them to organize and take action to create a better world on their own terms. And contrary to popular belief, this is not something that corporate internet monopolies are in the business of doing. They are not facilitating communication. Their core business is data collection and data mining. Any communication services they provide are just hooks, are carefully engineered to coerce consumers into giving up their privacy. These business models are fundamentally extractive and exploitive. So because these companies collect and store petabytes of data, personal data from citizens and from consumers, the necessary computing resources and the environmental impact of running their operations is astronomically larger than our own. So, in terms of environmental sustainability, we are already at an advantage simply because we do the right thing and we don’t engage in this kind of surveillance and data collection. But, aside from that obvious benefit of being free of surveillance, our members are still interested in us finding new ways to increase our environmental sustainability and to reduce our carbon footprint. Unfortunately, for an organization of our size, our options are limited. Where we can place our servers is limited by both human resources and by access to high-speed broadband. We, as a small organization, simply don’t have the capital to build our own data centers that would be closer or have direct access to renewable energy resources. And also, finding cost-effective solutions to processing our own e-waste is also a challenge. And so, that’s something we’re interested in learning from other APC members about, like Nolotau. So, this is the advantage, I think, that comes from allowing our members to guide our own project in being a cooperative model that gives our members a voice and a vote and control and ownership over their own communications.

Onsite Moderator:
That’s a very powerful experience to share. Thank you so much, Jaime. And also, because it illustrates the interplay between environmental sustainability and the reinforcement of the exercise of rights online and offline. So, that’s quite interesting and inspiring. So, governments, obviously, governments could be key allies and champions for environmental justice. And in that sense, we are very happy to have Gilmas here in the panel with us to share the perspective of the German public strategy and approach on this field. So, Gilmas, what does cooperation mean in the context of digitalization from the perspective of BMZ? So, welcome. And also, if you can also, perhaps, let me just add something. So, if you can also touch upon how can global norms and standards relating to internet governance and environmental governance can support these cooperative models and these approaches, and in that sense, work all together towards a fair transition, a just transition. So, welcome. and let us hear your views.

Yilmaz Akkoyun:
Dear Valeria, thank you so much for this interesting question. It’s a great honor and pleasure to share my views on behalf of the BMZ on day zero here at the IGF and to learn more about the work of cooperatives around the globe and take it back to Berlin to also check how our work is aligned with what cooperatives do. Let me start with the first question and then tackle the second one too. So cooperation is at the heart of what BMZ does. So what are the plans for the future what projects are CVID-19 efforts and what’s your vision of what the future of our CVID-19 efforts should look like? Yes, I’ll start. So my name is Philip. It’s a great pleasure to meet you. We very kindly prepared and introduced our whole team to the question of our Media Society, what is your wish for the future of CVID-19. economic cooperation and development, as German BMZ, we want to enhance economic, political and societal participation of all our people in our countries, partner countries, especially the most marginalized. This is our mission and cooperation with our partners is essential for the holistic approach, necessary to address the root causes of the complex problems that we are facing today. These global challenges did not become easier if we consider climate change, which you just mentioned, pandemics, poverty and the fight against hunger. They all require coordinated responses that go beyond individual projects and now let me get to what cooperation means, especially in the field of digital affairs, digitalization. If we look how the world looks today, it’s happening very unequally. Almost half of the world’s population do not have access to the Internet. We are here in Japan and the access, of course, is very different if we consider partners in the global South. There, women and marginalized communities are particularly affected by this digital divide, whereas more than 90% of people are online in the European Union or Germany, where I am from. In our partner countries, fewer than 40% do have Internet access and we are working to change this. So cooperation is key for us in addressing these issues and I think we need conversations between countries from the global South and the North to make digitalization benefits all. Staying true to the claim to leave no one behind, we first need to make sure that everyone can benefit from digital transformation. What does it mean? This means prioritizing inclusivity and promoting meaningful equal access to for all people, especially in these vulnerable and marginalized communities, are essential and yes, global norms are essential in doing this We have three cornerstones in our digital policy work to get there and norms are one of them We could talk about this in our own panel, I would say but for us, they are essential, especially digital public goods and this is very important for us in our work and yesterday you had, I think, one conversation of the role of the Global Digital Compact and we are very engaged in that process, in the dialogue, contributing and I think we have an interesting road ahead to the summit of the future in getting there and shaping this together and learning from you is helpful for us to contribute in that process and engaging in these norms and we aim to promote a fair, free, open and secure internet this is also for me part of the norms you mentioned to get a digital transformation which is ecological, social and feminist and in this way, the digital transformation can be a driver of progress towards achieving the SDGs where we are now on our half-time, if we consider the agenda 2030 I hope this answered your question for now and I’m looking forward to the dialogue here and thank you for inviting me again

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you, Yilmaz As we heard from Ken Lee, if we want the digital economy to really contribute to planetary justice then the consideration of feminist and gender perspective is crucial I don’t think we can get that without considering that aspect. And last but not least, and before inviting Paz to also pose some questions for you, I would like to invite Becky to share your perspective. Becky, as a researcher in the field, how do you see this conversation of transforming technology frameworks and advancing planetary justice in the governance of technology in relation to recent policy developments such as labeling? So, very curious to hear about it.

Becky Kazansky:
Hello. Thank you so much for having me this morning and for being part of this discussion. So, my name is Becky Kuczynski. I’m a researcher at the University of Amsterdam where I study the just governance of climate technologies. Thank you very much. Okay, I think it’s on now. And for the last year or so, I’ve been collaborating with a number of different organizations and networks and APC included, to think about the values and principles that can guide more collaborations across different civil society movements. To think about technological governance that can support environmental and climate justice. And as part of that work, we’ve been brainstorming on what a theory of change can look like on this really, in collaboration with a number of different partners and collaborators. So, I wanted to share a little bit about some of the biggest themes that have come up from this process because I think it really brings home how important the kinds of models are that the other speakers have really beautifully illustrated already. And I would say that one of the most important themes that has come up is, you know, if on the one side it’s essential to support alternative models for technology through collaboratives, co-ops, and other models. On the other hand, it’s essential that we, and I mean we in this as a group of, you know, different kinds of stakeholders coming together today. That we don’t get distracted by technologies and tools that on the surface can seem quite promising for mitigating or adapting to climate change, but which have already proven to be quite harmful to different kinds of communities and populations and countries around the world. And so in not getting distracted, this would provide more room for support for the kinds of models that are being discussed today. And I’ll give you a few examples of the kinds of distractions that have come up in the policy space recently and around which there is movement on the policy side to either reform or think strongly about restrictive governance and even going further than that. The first is around AI, which is a subject that comes up a lot these days. And I’m thinking specifically of the fact that in the climate governance space, the UNFCCC has recently announced a new initiative to support an exploration of the promise of AI as a climate technology. And on this front, what civil society really is arguing for is that if there is gonna be a wide-scale investment, and there already is, into data-driven technologies like AI, then we have to make sure that their promises on the one hand aren’t oversold by certain actors, and on the other hand, that the harms that already are apparent are actually taken account of in further movements around AI. And I’ll give you one example in particular, because AI is now being framed as an important tool in the food and water security nexus. Recently, there have been studies coming out that, and it has been historically very difficult to measure exactly what the impact of AI has been on climate, water, and resources. But there have been studies showing that, for example, half a liter of water is spent for every five queries that someone makes to chat GPT. So to put it into context, that’s a large amount of water for someone sitting in front of their computer and asking five questions to something that is powered by a very, very water- and resource-intensive infrastructure. So, and that is just one example from the climate side, but there are so many other human rights-centered harms that have been raised for decades now by civil society. And this really brings into question then, and I think offers a lot for consideration and food for thought. as AI gets invested into as a climate technology. And a very quick second example would be around solar geoengineering. This is a long promise, but also very still quite speculative technology, which in the last year governments have actually announced an interest in investing and experimenting with on a scale that hasn’t necessarily taken place before. This is a technology for which there is currently no system of governance. And in fact, 400 scientists from around the world question whether it is even possible to govern something like solar geoengineering because it requires enormous wide-scale coordination across the world. And once it is put into place, it creates a lock-in because if it were to stop, it could make climate change and global heating much worse and much faster. So on this basis, a number of different groups are pushing for moratoriums, bans, and basically trying to invoke the precautionary principle to create the space to step back and ask whether this is something that actually we, citizens and people living across different regions of the world should consent to because once it’s put in place, the impacts can be enormous. And one final example from the positive side of recent policy developments is around the EU Green Claims Directive, which is an innovative piece of policy which would help the consumer understand. which products that they are interested in purchasing are actually living up to the many claims around sustainability that different companies make in terms of net zero and otherwise. This is great progress. However, again, it’s clear that there’s a lot to figure out in how this works in practice. And I’ll give you one example, which is around carbon offsets. So carbon offsets are not directly addressed, as I understand it, by the Green Claims Directive. However, it does take the perspective that a company should not be able to claim it’s climate neutral or sustainable simply because it makes use of carbon offsets. This is an important acknowledgement, and I think it responds to a number of different scientific studies, consensus around that that is building, and also pushback from civil society for several decades now, saying that carbon offsets do not actually work ecologically the way that they are set out to, and that they provide cover for companies to make claims that they can’t necessarily deliver on. But what’s really important to ask there is how far can this Green Claims Directive go? Because a lot of civil society is pushing for a more fundamental critique of carbon offsets. They would say that it’s not enough to simply say, well, you can only use a certain amount of carbon offsets. They would say, actually, the entire carbon market system needs either reform or even something more drastic than that, because at the moment, over 90% of carbon offsets, even the verified ones. even the ones that conform to all the standards that have been set, are not working. And so, I’m gonna leave it there and simply say that there are a lot of questions here, obviously. There are positive governance and policy developments in this regard, and the hope is that by pushing these further and not getting distracted by risky speculative technologies, that more support is available for the kinds of initiatives that we’ve heard from today. Thank you.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you so much, Vicky. That’s also very powerful, and particularly, Nadia, how you remind us about the need to apply the precautionary principle. I think that’s a must. Hopefully, it has been taken seriously by all the necessary stakeholders. With that, I want to invite my co-moderator, Paz Peña. First, to check also if you have questions for the speakers, and if we have also interventions from remote participants. So, Paz, over to you.

Online Moderator:
Thank you, Valeria. Just to remind our online participants that they can actually share their comments and questions on the chat or on the Q&A tool. I just want to make a couple of general questions, open questions to our participants. I think, based on what you have said, the big question here is, what is digital transformation in the context of climate and the ecological crisis, no? So, as Becky said, in a way, you have two answers, no? One is the green responses that big tech is giving. which, by the way, are super problematic because of the extractivism nature of big techs, not only in terms of data extractivism and all the infrastructure that you need for that extractivism, but also because of water extractivism, natural resources in general, et cetera. So that is one thing that is super important to address, but in a way, I believe that governments especially are forgetting to actually look other business models besides the big tech model in their own local companies of technologies, no? So it seems that, and this is something that I’ve been learning in all countries, for example, in Latin America, all governments try to give funds to companies to replicate the business model of big tech, no? In a way, more data, more growth, et cetera. And that is why I think it’s important to ask ourselves what is digital transformation then in the context of this climate crisis? We want more data. We want more growth of that infrastructure because that means, for example, that we need to deal with e-waste. And this is what the incredible initiative that Nodotao is doing in Argentina, but who is paying for that? Is big tech paying to organizations to cope with e-waste in local countries as Argentina? Who’s paying for that? What is doing our, what are governments doing with all that kind of e-waste that we need to deal with when we are saying digital transformation is? more big tech, et cetera, et cetera, no? So I think my next question, besides what is digital transformation in this context, is then what is the role of governments? Not only to deal with the problem of sustainability of big techs, but also in terms of basically fund fund the alternative business models, no? Because here in Latin America, we have a very historical tradition of different technological business models that sometimes they fail because they don’t see support, no, from local governments. So what is the role of local governments in there, in the context of climate crisis and ecological crisis? I think those questions are key in order to actually transform, radically transform the planetary ways to, the ways that we see the planetary crisis from technology. Thank you very much.

Onsite Moderator:
Yes, thank you. Thank you, Paz, and also in addition to what role governments have in supporting these alternative models, I would like to also add how that support should look like concretely in practice. So both our remote participants and our speakers, remote speakers and speakers on site are invited to respond and to react to these questions that Paz has also brought up. So if any of you could like to respond, Kimberly, please go ahead. Remote participants, okay.

Kemly Camacho:
Okay, it resonates me a lot what our colleague said. here about not putting the emphasis in the green, but in the models that we are using. And that connects a lot with what Paz said before. Because at least for Latin America, you know in the imaginary of our governments, but also of our citizens, and also of our academia, the model, the big model, yes, is startups, unicorn, big techs, yes? This business model, this way to do economy is the ideal way, is the road, the path where we have to go. And I think it’s crucial, yes, to really rethink these models, yes? And when I say rethink these models, is really change tools, change approaches, change methodologies to develop business models and digital economy, the same thing, yes? We have to change that. We, since after the pandemic, or during the pandemic, that we all in Latin America talk of the solution was the digital transformation, we always said, this is not the solution. The solution is digital appropriation, which is totally different for ourselves. Digital transformation is oriented to consumption. Digital appropriation is oriented to reduce consumption, to think which digital tools you really need, which digital business you really need to develop. For us, there is a main, main difference between digital transformation and digital appropriation. And we and go and advocate for digital transformation. I have to say, when I talk about changing the business models, really develop tools, and I’m calling academia, I’m calling incubators, I’m calling governments to really rethink the way that we are doing business. And I’m going to put concrete examples, I don’t know who of you have worked with the canvas model to develop a business, yes? And in this canvas model to develop a business, the center of the canvas model is the value added of your business, yes? What we have done is put in the center the solidarity and care that your business is going to improve and develop, yes? Before the value added to get money, yes? And also we put, instead of putting in the center of this canvas model the accumulation, we put the redistribution of the resources that you are going to make if you develop this business model. Then we have to change that, yes? Because for us, this is in the center of the development of our society, and we cannot talk green if we are using unicorn startups and big companies as, and platform companies, not platform co-op, but platform companies as the model of the digital economy and as the model of our entrepreneurship in our countries. Then answering a little bit the question, this is my reaction. And also remember, remember to all of you, extractivism is everywhere. because we talk about extractivism for the natural resources, water, all of that and it’s crucial, fundamental but also it’s extractivism of wisdom, extractivism of knowledge of the people extractivism of solidarity, extractivism of the time extractivism is the center of this model then this is my reaction, Valeria.

Onsite Moderator:
let me invite Florencia to give a space also to the virtual participation honoring the hybrid format of the IGF and then we can take reactions from the floor here so Florencia, please, the floor is yours.

Florencia Roveri:
thank you, Valeria just to follow what you are saying when we decided to become the plant into a cooperative it has to do to follow with the intention of providing work inclusion for a group of young people adding that sense to our previous work of digital inclusion and also assuming the challenge that we were facing with the excess of e-waste in our everyday work so we first developed the plant and then following the process of the plant we decided to go on with the project of the cooperative due to the different focus of our work and the complexity of the work of the cooperative, of the plant the plant has to lead with aspects related to production to commercialization and to habilitations and it has a complexity that it aims to be a production unit on itself We also have in Noto Tau an experience of accompanying another cooperative that is working in the treatment of cartridge tons, and they are also following this process of becoming a cooperative, in this case formed by women involved in a work of a gender organization working with issues of violence and situations in which they are involved, in which also the primary aspect is their work inclusion. So in these two experiences, we work with the treatment of technology, assuming the responsibility of dealing with that aspect of the technology, but also with a human aspect related to the work and social inclusion of these groups. In the case of the plant, we also include another aspect that is the social destiny of the equipments that we could recover and repair in the work of the plant. So these experiences invite us to rethink about the use of technology and our work with it, assuming that they are still resources needed for the communities, but the environmental impact in place is needed to be assumed by a diversity of actors. And one of the aspects we found in the work of the cooperatives, in particular the e-waste cooperative management of Tau, is that these responsibilities are not being perceived and are not being assumed. And in this sense, we distinguish aspects related to government responsibilities in the terms of developing plans for integral management of e-waste and the coordination of actors and the regulation and promotion of laws. In Argentina, we do not have a national law, we have a provincial regulation with some aspects that are interesting in terms of, for example, recognising the figure of the manager of e-waste and recognising the social reuse of equipment that is interesting in several aspects that promotes the reuse of computers, for example, and also the responsibility of companies and the private sector in which we can distinguish the responsibility of producers facilitating the disassembly process, aspects with which we deal in the work of the plant, of the management plant, and also the responsibility of companies that generate e-waste in terms as Paz was mentioning previously. In this sense, it is important to visibilise the cost involved in the treatment. We lead locally with a lot of actors that want to value the work of the cooperative of Nonotau, but they assume that the devices they discard are donations. In this sense, it is important to highlight an extended perception of this concept of the devices I do not use anymore or the e-waste the companies generate are donated for social use. There is a slogan in the local campaign that is, don’t donate your waste to me, because in this sense, we are… naming donation, the process that is getting rid of a problem and give it that problem to another actor. So, the idea is relevant dealing with any staff that don’t donate waste, but in the case of technology or discarded technology, there is some difficulties that make it even dangerous. So, that is what we want to mention.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you so much, Florencia. Yilmaz or Becky, would you like to take some of the questions that Paz brought up? Please go ahead.

Yilmaz Akkoyun:
Yes, thank you so much. Let me first start with an invitation for another session of the German delegation. On Tuesday, on day two, we have an event, Planetary Limits of AI, Governance for Just Digitalization. This is exactly our topic and guests are welcome and I will give a short overview what we contribute in this field and how our approach is towards digital transformation in particular. As being said, together with the European Union, we offer a human-centered digital transformation. For us, this means that we actively shape digitalization by addressing its risks for environment, but also individual human rights and society. We use the term trend transition, how digitalization can help the fight against environmental challenges. We want to actively combat social division, the misuse of data, as well as environmental and climate damage caused by resource consumption and CO2 emissions. Exactly what you mentioned and I really liked your approach towards changing a business model canvas use because I was taking MBA classes in the US and this was exactly what you mentioned and I think education is essential for this but I will come back to it later again. So as Germany we are committed towards ecological, feminist and social digital policy and for us this enables a fair balance of interests based on European standards and universal human rights. We want to ensure that partner countries are integrated into an open, secure and inclusive internet and fair data markets and for that we also need strong local governments and I will also come back to that later. Our digital policy is based on three cornerstones and you mentioned earlier the role of standards and norms. These are essential but also structures. By that I mean DPI, digital public infrastructure and goods but third also promoting digital skills in society and in the economy. I also really like the sentence about don’t donate your waste to me because I think it’s also a question of education for that. But firstly providing structures for human-centered digital services and public goods is vital. Many of our initiatives, to give you a more concrete example because otherwise sometimes international digital policy is very abstract, our initiatives contribute to more democratic and open, fair societies. Our goal is to support the digital self-determination of citizen and partner countries and this requires effective, secure infrastructure that should be based on open and reusable ICD building blocks. We have one initiative, it’s our flagship initiative of the German International Digital Policy, it’s called Gafstag. We develop a global toolbox for reusable open source building blocks for Gafstag. And secondly, to be more concrete on the questions mentioned, we work with partner countries across the globe to promote fair regulation of the digital economy. And one initiative that I want to highlight is the so-called BMZ DTCs, the Digital Transformation Centers. They serve as a local implementation and anchor structure of these efforts. Around the globe, we already have 22, and they are our gate to the local world, to the local communities, the local governments. And further through the initiative Fair Forward, we have worked with governments of, for example, Rwanda, Ghana, and India. And together with Smart Africa, we are involved in developing national AI strategies. And these AI national strategies have a particular focus on the fight against environmental challenges. I think we support also our global partners to realize the potential of AI through local innovation. And here’s where the magic, so to speak, happens. And last but not least, what you mentioned, digital skills. They are one of the cornerstones of BMZ digital policy training of young people in job-related digital skills, but also related to waste management and getting a mindset and a culture in this regard is essential. Therefore, we support the public sector in our daily work, the private sector, civil society, and especially young women. in acquiring the necessary knowledge about digitalization and thus being able to respond to the challenges of digital transformation and to use its potential. And our learning platform is called Attingi which we wrote out via German Development Corporation and our partners and it already reached over 11 million people and I just wanted to stress that next to norms we focus on standards and skills and with these three cornerstones we try to contribute towards working on a digital transformation which really contributes in the fight against environmental damages and challenges and this is our concrete work next to the coordination efforts in the global arena and fora. Thank you so much.

Onsite Moderator:
I think that commitment is very important in order to detect the impact to know that the policy developments and norms will have one in place as Becky was pointing out. It might be difficult then to revert the effects of what policies and norms enable or the result that they produce. So thank you for that. Jaime, let me know if you want to intervene at this point to refer to the questions that Paz brought up otherwise I can open the floor for questions and comments here and also from remote participants. So Jaime, first let me hear from you. You could like to intervene.

Jaime Villareal:
Sure, gracias Valeria. I don’t know if I have anything new to add. I agree with a lot of what has been said so far. I just really want to highlight some of the points that some of our other guests have made. I really agree with Kemblee that we have to push back on this dominant model of thinking about how solutions are made. This dominant capitalist narrative that only excessive… excessively profitable high-yield businesses can guide us through climate change. This kind of ridiculous thinking is what is driving the investment and the promotion of things like artificial intelligence. And we have to remember that artificial intelligence doesn’t exist on its own. It is fueled by our data, our information. It is this rampant accumulation and extraction of our knowledge that makes this possible. And that is built on, that has a very huge physical environmental impact. And it has a real emotional impact, psychological impact on us as a society to operate that way. This kind of thinking, this nonsense is essentially trying to put out a fire with gasoline. We can’t allow this to continue. And I really appreciate these comments about pushing back against the greenwashing of these businesses. These companies who make enormous profits based on these extractive business models of surveilling their users, and then spend just a tiny fraction of that money to create a few exemplary sustainable data center projects. We can’t applaud these things. These public relations stunts, they don’t address the total environmental impact of all of the computing resources that are needed to continue their operations. But also they are essentially, even if they do comply with their promises for reducing their carbon footprints, but they’re essentially doing damage control to a problem that they themselves have created. And we can’t allow this kind of thing to continue. I really agree with supporting a different thinking, different models, supporting community and cooperative based models towards supporting communications and listening to ourselves and taking guidance from our communities in these matters. And in that sense, we’ve been doing, a lot of us have been doing this for a long time. And if we are to be supported, I think it needs to be on our own terms. We need to be trusted to continue. practicing community engagement in the way that we have been doing and organizing ourselves in the way that we have been doing.

Onsite Moderator:
Precisely, that’s part of the, perhaps one of the most important responses to enable that that community engagement and response is possible and feasible. So let me open for reactions, comments, questions from the floor and also from remote participants. If there is anyone here that would like to intervene and to pose a question or a reaction, your interventions are welcome. So let me know what you, you can raise your hand, we can pass you the mic. Please go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you very much Valeria. I think, is the microphone working? Yes, okay, very good. I very much appreciate the session. My name is Peter Brücke. I’m the chairman of the World Summit Awards. And what we do is we focus on best practice examples exactly regarding new and different business models. In this room, our next session is on hacking digital divides. And you will see Alloy, for instance, which is a micro financing solution for small and micro businesses. You will see Social Lab from Chile, which shows actually, I think you will love this very much, a business model based on love. And they have 600 different kind of companies there. Then we have people from Lebanon which show how social volunteers work. And it’s something very interesting because the digital transformation centers work with us regarding promoting these examples. We were just in Mexico and Puebla and doing this. One of the key things, however, is for the session, which I think is really so important, is to talk about the technology frameworks. and the alternative of technology frameworks. And I think what Jaime was saying is really very much to the point, but he is giving, Jaime, you are giving us a critique, but you’re not showing us what would be possible solutions. So, for instance, one of the things which I think is very much important when you’re looking at large language models and machine learning and how you train them, that very few people, I have not seen any government talk about how to tax the AI companies for how they train their models with the data. So they are not paying for the data which they use to train. They are not respecting copyright in terms of when they train it. They are not giving anything back. So one of the things which I found very interesting when you talk about the social, ecological, and feminist policy in terms of cooperation, does the BMZ have actually a clear understanding that you need to go into the economics of how to make AI smarter? And what would it be actually in terms of a cooperative model for that aspect? Because then we are really addressing, Valeria, the issue of this session, which is alternative technology frameworks. We need to see, and I think Jaime is very clear on that, is that we have very much a hidden extraction situation, exploitation situation, but it is not being recognized as such, and therefore we are not even using market models, which means making them pay for the smartness of their models. And we are not moving to this, although we have with the German government one of the key players in that industry, I mean, global play. So my question is very much to Ilmas on this issue. Have you thought about it yourself? Is there anything in terms of the policy development? And then Valeria, I would be very happy to engage more with APC in terms of finding good examples of where you are not creating a parallel economy, but where you are basically seeing, OK, how can we transform the economy and do that in a different way? So that would be my little five cents.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you so much for your contribution. Is there any other contribution from the floor or pass? Let me know if there are remote participants who would like to intervene or present questions for the panel. No. Not yet here, yeah. OK, so obviously the panel is invited to react, to comment, to respond to what has been said. Any one of you could like to take that on, please?

Yilmaz Akkoyun:
Yeah, Peter, thank you so much. It’s a very interesting question. Let me first say one sentence to our further engagement in this regard, and then get back to your answer. The BEAMSET’s digital initiatives provide knowledge about regulation, setting standards, I said, in order to promote our goals for fair digital transition in partner countries. And one initiative which I didn’t mention but is really fitting in this context is the BEAMSET initiative, Fair Forward, which contributes towards the development of open AI training data sets in Kiswahili and Luganda, inter alia, languages spoken by more than 150 million people collectively. Further through the initiative Fair Forward, we have worked with governments Rwanda, Ghana, and India, I mentioned, and how they contribute for green tech solutions. We see open access to AI training in data and research. as well as open-source AI models as a foundation for local innovation. On Tuesday in our session our partners from the Mozilla Foundation are also here. The economics of our engagement is super interesting. The aspects that you mentioned I’m a fan of that approach actually as a studied economist but I think for now we have a different approach and I will get that question take that back to Berlin and discuss with our colleagues which are operationalizing doing that program and programs are also developing and changing I would say generally but at the end for me it’s important what the outcome and the impact of these programs are and how they can contribute towards local solutions and transforming the local population and the economics of the local development is essential but I also think it’s a global question which we need to discuss and taking it from there I would like to engage with you beyond this panel and discussion and let’s discuss also after the IGF please and maybe other colleagues on the panel have also contributed.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you. The cooperatives that are present here obviously they have been also thinking and implementing different type of solutions and providing responses so let me just check if there are other questions or comments here Yes, please go ahead

Audience:
Hello, I’m Daichi Sakamoto and Dova Corporation is a private company in Japan So, very interesting discussion. And then, so, I’m working on the, here, so, IT industry in Japan. And then, in Japan, there is a word that digital dokata. Digital dokata, dokata means the construction worker. So, it’s just a digital worker, but working like as the construction worker means, so, very small work. And then, so, accumulation of the small workers, small work, will be big, so, make big building. This is the Japanese, so, industry culture. So, but, if the AI come in here, and then, maybe, this mindset will be changed, but I think it will be moderate, because, so, it’s very big change. And then, so, this kind of the layer structure, it’s the small worker will be used by the readers, and then readers, reader use, and then, this kind of the pyramid structure is existing in the industry. So, maybe, if we think about this digital transformation, this digital transformation, we need to take care each, all of layers. So, how to transformation, how to transform each layers. So, at that time, maybe, the AI will be, so, violate or disrupt this, the layers, and then, maybe, new style or new business model will come. So, in fact, so, I heard several, I offered several works of the new era, or new business model. That means the new work is training AI. So training AI means to make a data of the conversation. It’s very easy. And maybe anyone can speak Japanese, can train the AI. So this is just a new style work. But there is also the big gap of the current work and the previous work. So maybe this kind of the gap of the new business model and the current model will be the problem in the industry. I felt that in this discussion.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you very much. I would like to finally invite the panel and our remote speakers as well to just share some final remarks with some recommendations or demands that you might have to different stakeholders, including governments, of course. If you want to dig a little bit more into the point that was brought up about solutions and responses, so you are welcome to do so. So I would like to start with Becky. If you could like to share some final comments with the audience, please.

Becky Kazansky:
Yeah, thank you so much. I’ll keep my final comment very short, just to say that one important thing that is required in order to support the kinds of solutions that already exist and pathways that already exist within a just transition, and that includes examples brought forward today by panelists both remotely and in the room. So to support those, we also have to challenge what the climate justice movement for decades has called out as false and misleading climate solutions. So that includes pushing for policy that can address greenwashing. and also pushing for strong regulation around speculative and dangerous climate technologies. Some of these technologies are not always part of the digitalization discussion, for example, solar geoengineering, carbon credits, but they are technologies that are being invested into heavily by big tech companies as part of plans to be able to continue the profit models that they rely on. So that’s why it’s important for the audience of the IGF to also begin to engage around these kinds of technologies as well and see them as part of the same discussion. So thank you so much.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you so much. So let me go to Florencia. Florencia, you would like to share your final comments and demands or recommendations?

Florencia Roveri:
Yes, thank you. Just to highlight again the aspect about responsibilities related to each holder, in our focus, e-waste is a very complex problem and the interrelation of holders and of actors is a challenge and also maybe it would need to be involved in the idea that it should be a public service to assume this problem and also the fact of the profitability of these actions. We work in a very small experience, but it’s a huge problem affecting really deeply environment and also it’s a problem that it has a very big potential in work generation. possibilities and opportunities for people and also for addressing the digital divide also. So, thank you.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you, Florencia. Let me go to Jilmes for your final comments, please.

Yilmaz Akkoyun:
Thank you so much. This was super interesting and an honor to be here. BMZ contributes to various political responses, process and fora. Our key question is how can we reinforce efforts to bring local perspectives and national perspectives from the global south in the international arena. And we have a wide growing international network in working relations with a number of governments, but also especially civil society actors and other stakeholders, which we use in favor of more digital cooperation. On an international level, the German government especially supports the Global Digital Compact, which was mentioned before. And we also actively engage in discussions on in the G7, G20 context and multi-stakeholder initiatives such as Gafstech that I mentioned and the Digital for Development Hub of the European Union. Global digital cooperation is essential for us to support a holistic approach to the digital transformation, but not also for its opportunities, but also for its risks. I personally think we must foster close cooperation on a large scale in order to advance social and a sustainable digital transition around the globe. This is why we are here. Let’s stay in touch. This was super helpful. Thank you so much for your perspectives. I think with sharing these formats, we are stronger and can build a digital world where we can achieve our goals together.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you so much. Jaime You have the floor, please. Thank you.

Jaime Villareal:
I agree with the gentleman who called out these large companies for what essentially is criminal behavior of using our data to train these language models at no cost of their own. And while I agree that we need to hold these companies and corporations accountable for these actions, the idea of allowing them to pay a fine, to pay a tax, I have strong questions about this. How is this different than the system of carbon credits? And how is this different than a shell game that allows them to do wrong and pay for it later, right? With the enormous profits they’re able to make from that. And likewise, this idea that how these questions, I think they’re very interesting questions about how this changes the role of the worker and what participation we can have as workers in training AI models. But I think it’s important to remember also that there’s choosing to be a worker and then there are ways that we will be forced to be workers and we will be forced to train AI. We will be forced just to have access to technology through tiny widgets that are presented to us, to puzzles that we have to solve, through any kind of information that we have to give to the AI. We will have no choice in training these models. And what do we do about that? Where we are exploited and we are not even treated as real workers and we are essentially serfs within this wider system. I think that, of course, supporting local initiatives, of course, supporting indigenous languages and their preservation is tremendously important, but I don’t believe that we can apply a single model to all cases. And I think it’s very important to ask ourselves, are we asking, are we listening to these communities directly? Is this what they want? And maybe there are cases where they are interested in experimenting and having access to these technologies, but I don’t think we can apply this as a single solution across the board to everywhere, that this is the way to stimulate local… local preservation of languages and indigenous cultures, I think we have to ask and everywhere, there has to be a proper consultation with local communities whether this is something they are actually interested in.

Onsite Moderator:
Absolutely, and the global community has a role to play in ensuring that those perspectives and the ones impacted in reality are brought to these conversations because as Jaime is pointing out, there is not a single solution that fits everyone. So hearing from the ones that are impacted and the realities and particularities is very important and for that cooperation and also the commitment of all the stakeholders to make sure that those voices are heard because there is a voice. The problem is that they are not welcome or not heard in different spaces. So I think that’s very necessary and one of the needed actions in order to change the paradigm. So let me close the panel with Kem Lee. Kem Lee, your final remarks and then to thanking you all for the presence and the comments and for joining the conversation about this key issue. Thank you very much.

Kemly Camacho:
Thank you, Mr. Brook for your intervention that made me think a lot, yes. But I have the same reaction than Jaime, yes. Then if you pay, you can do it, yes. And I would like to also integrate and discuss with my colleagues with a feminist analysis what you are proposing. Yes, especially because of that, because if we charge the machine learning, the training machine learning is not a way to accept that they can do that if they charge. And also because in the feminist analysis, technology frameworks has to be very related to solve the concrete problem in the context where we women live. Then technology framework for us. yes, have to be related with this context around us, the care of our children, the care of our community, then our technology framework, we prioritize these technology frameworks. Then this is one thing. The second thing about the job and the fair job and the precariousness of work and how that is transforming and how all what we win as workers are transforming and this is another discussion. And I think this business model, collective in the model, cooperatives and all of that have in the center a fair job and especially a fair job for women. Then it’s totally connected. If we have fair jobs, we can survive as humanity in this world. If we have precarious jobs or work, we are not going to survive as humanity for sure. Then just to say thank you very much. I think this is a conversation to follow and go in depth and discover and explore. Thank you.

Onsite Moderator:
Thank you very much again for your openness and let’s continue the conversation in the different spaces here at the IGF. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.